The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of seven million won.

Defendant

A.

1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the grounds for appeal (the fines of seven million won per fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine Defendant A ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal.

"A crime for which judgment to face with imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment has become final and a crime committed before such judgment has become final and conclusive" shall constitute concurrent crimes prescribed in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. In such cases, a punishment shall be imposed in consideration of equity in cases where a crime among concurrent crimes has become final and conclusive under Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act and a crime for which judgment has not become final and conclusive

According to the records, Defendant A was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for six months and two years of suspension of execution on December 21, 2017, for a violation of the Act on the Development of Suwon Friwon, which was after the judgment of the court below was rendered, on July 13, 2017, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on December 21, 2017.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below that did not sentence Defendant A for each of the instant offenses in consideration of equity in cases where the above judgment was rendered concurrently with the crime of violation of the Act on Specialized Credit Financial Business, which became final and conclusive, could no longer be maintained.

B. Considering the favorable circumstances such as the confession of the Defendant B to commit the crime and the reflection thereof, there is the history of punishment for the same crime. The instant crime is a financing of funds through credit card transactions by means of the means of pretending the sale of goods, and ultimately undermining the financial order and the foundation of the credit transaction system, and the nature of the relevant crime is not easy, and there is no significant amount of financing, etc., the court below’s punishment is too unreasonable, taking into account all the sentencing conditions, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual behavior, motive, frequency of the crime, frequency of the crime, method of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below on the part against Defendant A has the above reasons for reversal.